Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for four months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants partly revised the facts charged to the extent that it does not materially disadvantage the Defendants’ exercise of their defense rights.

Defendant

A is the owner of a “D” business in the 7th floor of Goyangyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City C building, and Defendant B is the employee of the said business.

The Defendants: (a) Defendant A, as the owner of the foregoing business, manages the task force of Defendant B as the owner of the foregoing business; (b) Defendant B, as an employee; and (c) in collusion with each other to provide customers with information; and (c) from March 2018, 2018

5. From the end of 21:30 on February 23, 200, when receiving KRW 1.20,000 in return for sexual traffic from many unspecified male customers who found their places, 70,000 out of them shall be paid to female employees, and after guiding male customers in a smuggling, female employees E and F shall, in advance, be brought into a smuggling.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to commit acts such as arranging sexual traffic for business purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Examination protocol of Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant B concerning the police officer

1. Each statement of E and F;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. The Defendants: Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment with labor

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection of Defendant A: The additional collection of Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic with respect to the imposition of an additional collection charge under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic is intended to deprive the offender of unlawful profits necessary for eradicating the acts of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the additional collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender. However, the expenses of taxes, etc. paid by the offender in the course of performing the acts of